N.J. State Police superintendent must answer questions in diabetes lawsuit

The Star-Ledger ^ | January 23, 2013 | Christopher Baxter

[neverdem]

A federal magistrate judge has ordered State Police Superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes to answer questions about how troopers are trained to recognize and respond to people suffering from diabetic shock, a serious condition caused by extremely low blood sugar.

In 2011, Daniel Fried, 47, of Pennsylvania, sued two troopers claiming that, a year earlier, they failed to recognize he was suffering from shock on the side of the road, wrestled him to the ground, struck him with a baton, arrested him and denied him the juice he requested from his van.

The first trooper to arrive said in court documents he suspected diabetes but never passed that on to a second trooper, who later confronted Fried and took him down. The troopers said in an incident report that force was necessary because Fried was obstinate and did not follow commands.

The troopers also said in court documents they never received training on how to differentiate a diabetic emergency from intoxication, which causes similar symptoms, and they never saw a warning bracelet Fried says he has worn since his condition was diagnosed.

In September, Fried’s attorney, Aaron Freiwald of Philadelphia, filed a motion to compel Fuentes to answer questions about training after the state Attorney General’s Office, which represents the State Police, refused to set dates for a deposition.

The office opposed the motion, arguing, in part that it was Fried’s refusal to follow the troopers’ commands — not his medical condition — that resulted in his arrest, and interviewing Fuentes was unnecessary. The state also said troopers were law enforcement officers, not doctors, and should not be diagnosing medical problems.

But in a ruling Tuesday, Magistrate Judge Karen Williams disagreed. Freiwald said Fuentes will be deposed under oath within the next 30 days.

“We understand Col. Fuentes is in charge...”

[SeminoleCounty]

Wrong.

LEOs in all states are considered First Responders...and are required to have basic training and knowledge in medical emergencies....which include diabetic shock.

Judging by the refusal of the LEO agency to answer the deposition....they are well aware that they are First Responders....and are to know how to handle diabetic shock.

[Don W]

Lemme fix that for ya

The basic problem as I see it is cops very nearly always take the position that the person under suspicion EVERYONE THEY SEE is a criminal and they act accordingly.

Why else would they refer to the public as "civilians" rather than citizens? I was taught that a cop was just another citizen entrusted with keeping the peace by enforcing the law, not acting as though every encounter were a gunpoint takedown.

[neverdem]

In this particular case, the bigger question in my mind is: Why is someone who is prone to diabetic shock episodes permitted to drive a car in the first place? Things may be different now, but I was always under the impression that someone with epilepsy (to give one example) cannot get a driver’s license because of the danger they present on the road in the event of an epileptic episode.

Low blood glucose, i.e. hypoglycemia, can present itself as a seizure. There can be a first time for everything. The question is, is the individual medically stable or not?

The story didn't explain why the individual became hypoglycemic, e.g. decreased food intake for whatever reason, change in diabetic meds, etc.

Here's the regulation in NY: Medical Conditions of a Driver and Accident Re-examination

P.S. IIRC, glucose is the only fuel that your brain can use.

[vette6387]

Thanks for the rectification Don W,

For a time, I was “friends” with our retired chief of police (his third wife was a family friend). But as time wore on, from the things he told me, about his “career in law enforcement,” and how he “deserved” a pension that was 3X what he made on the job, I decided he was a bad choice for a personal association. He personifies what you said. He viewed everyone as a potential lawbreaker. He once told my wife he could follow her down the street in her car and find something he could stop her for in less than a mile. He also laughed when he told me that he used to waive his gun at motorists who followed too closely (which is a felony if you or I did it).